3-3.2 Past Performance Survey (4) (8).docx

DOCX document 41 KB Posted

Attached to
Asbestos and Mold Abatement Services
Solicitation number
P-005458
Issued by
Philadelphia County, Philadelphia City, Pennsylvania

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This is a Past Performance Survey form used by the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) Contracts and Procurement Department to evaluate contractor performance on previous projects relevant to the Asbestos and Mold Abatement Services contract opportunity. The survey is designed to gather objective, measurable information about a contractor's past performance through reference checks conducted with previous government and commercial clients. The form collects client information including the client name, project details, performance period, and project manager contacts. The survey includes both open-ended questions regarding project scope, complexity, end goals, program development, planning and staffing requirements, and timeline adherence, as well as structured rating sections across multiple performance categories.

The rating system uses five performance levels—Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable—to evaluate contractors across five key performance areas: Quality of Service, Cost Control, Timeliness of Performance, Business Relations, and Customer Satisfaction. Within Quality of Service, evaluators assess compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports, personnel effectiveness, technical excellence, and workmanship standards. Cost Control ratings examine cost forecasting, billing accuracy, negotiated versus actual costs, and cost efficiencies. Timeliness ratings measure interim milestone achievement, reliability, responsiveness to technical direction, on-time completion, delivery schedule compliance, and liquidated damages. Business Relations assess management effectiveness, contractor behavior, problem notification, flexibility, and small business subcontracting programs. Customer Satisfaction ratings determine overall commitment and contractor recommendation for future selection. The combined ratings from multiple references are used to assign an overall past performance rating that directly influences contractor selection decisions for the mold and asbestos abatement services contract.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
13-3.1 SOW P-005458 - AMAS.docx DOCX document
12-4. HUD Terms and Conditions (20).doc DOC document
9-5. PHA Standard Terms and Conditions-Section E (28).docx DOCX document
6-8. Section H (40).doc DOC document
2-2. Section B (Sample Contract) (13).doc DOC document
11-9.3 Section K-Section 3-update January 2025 (11).pdf PDF
7-6. PHA Special Terms and Conditions (30) (4).docx DOCX document
1-1. TOC and Section A (27).docx DOCX document
4-7. Evaluation Criteria (26).docx DOCX document
5-9.1 Section I Certification (7).doc DOC document
8-4.1 huddoc 5370-C Section I Non Contruction (17).docx DOCX document
10-9.2 Section J - Affirmative Action (18).doc DOC document
Show all 12

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT

Past Performance Survey

Contractor Name:

CLIENT INFORMATION

|_| Commercial Client
|_| Government Client
Client Name:

Client Address:

City

State

Zip Code

Project Name:
Total Project Value:
Performance Period:
Teaming Partner(s):
Government or Commercial Project Manager Contact
Alternate Government or Commercial Project Manager Contact
Name:
Name:
Title:
Title:
Phone number:
Phone number:
Fax number:
Fax number:
E-mail address:
E-mail address:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Instructions: This part consists of open-ended questions to determine the scope, complexity, and relevance of the project to the current requirement. Please answer the questions concisely and to the best of your knowledge.

1.
Describe the overall project type the contractor provided.
2.
Describe the end goal/end product and result.
3.
Describe the long-term program development involved in performing this task.
4.
Describe the level of planning and staffing contractor was required to perform and if they met the contracts exceptions.
5.
Describe the average timeline involved in completing this project and if contractor met that timeline within reason.

Forward Replies to: at the following e-mail:

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Please answer each of the following questions with a rating that is based on objective measurable performance indicators to the maximum extent possible. Comments to support ratings may be noted on last page. The Government will assess an overall past performance rating for each reference contacted. The overall ratings of each reference will then be combined to arrive at a final past performance rating that will be assigned points based upon the following rating scheme:

RATINGS ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

DefinitionDescription
ExcellentThe Contractor demonstrates an excellent performance level in all categories. There have been no performance problems and the Contractor has demonstrated initiative to enhance/exceed contractual requirements and objectives. The Contractor also has maintained an excellent Contractor/Government relationship throughout contract performance
GoodThere are no quality of service problems; no cost/price issues; and no delays. Responses to inquiries and technical/service administrative issues are consistently effective and responsive. Non-conformance does not impact achievement of contract requirements.
AcceptableNon-conformances are minor and have little impact in achievement of contract requirements, requires minor intervention by Government personnel to resolve issues.
MarginalNon-conformances are impacting achievement of contract requirements, requires substantial intervention by Government personnel to resolve issues.
UnacceptableNon-conformances are compromising the achievement of contract requirements, despite substantive intervention by Government personnel.

Past Performance Survey

PART 1: GENERAL PERFORMANCE

INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE RATING

Quality of Service
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
N/A
1. Compliance with contract requirements
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2. Accuracy of Reports
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3. Effectiveness of Personnel
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
4. Technical Excellence
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
5. Record of conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
6. Ability to provide services nationwide, including small and rural communities
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
Cost Control
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
N/A
1. Record of forecasting and controlling target costs
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2. Current, accurate, and complete billings
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3. Relationship of negotiated costs to actual
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
4. Cost efficiencies
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
Timeliness of Performance
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
N/A
1. Met interim milestones
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2. Reliability
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3. Responsive to technical direction
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
4. Completed on time including wrap up
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
5. Met delivery schedules
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
6. Amount of Liquidated Damages (Excellent=Low or None, Unacceptable= High)
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
Business Relations
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
N/A
1. Effective Management, including subcontracts
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2. Reasonable/cooperative behavior
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3. Responsive to contract requirements
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
4. Notification of problems
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
5. Flexibility
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
6. Pro-active vs. Reactive
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
7. Effective small/small disadvantage business subcontracting program
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
8. History of staff turnover
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
Customer Satisfaction
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
N/A
1. Commitment to customer satisfaction
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
2. Would you recommend selection of this firm again?
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
3. Overall Rating of Contractor
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

_______________________________________________________________________
Name and Signature of ReferenceDate

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .